Pets: Rabies vaccine research may save some painDenise FlaimAnimal House

July 2, 2007

Score one - a big one - for the underdogs.

I've written before about Kris Christine, who is a prime example of what one woman with equal parts outrage and focus can achieve: She pretty much forced the state of Maine to change its annual rabies revaccination requirement from annually to every three years.

So when she called last week with news so exciting she could barely keep her voice from squeaking, I perked up.

"We did it!" she said. "The rabies trials are on!"

Maybe you have no idea what that means. If so, maybe you should read on.

While in recent years many vets have embraced progressive attitudes about vaccination, many still cling to outdated ideas. Among them: giving "annual shots" for core canine diseases such as distemper and parvovirus when three years is considered to be the minimum interval between boosters, or giving vaccines that are not recommended at all, such as coronavirus. (If this sound like your vet, consult the American Animal Hospital Association's newly updated canine vaccination guidelines at aahanet.org, and consider switching to a veterinary professional who is not still in the Pleistocene era.)

Of all the vaccines veterinarians administer, rabies is the most sacrosanct, largely because the disease is zoonotic, a fancy word that means transmissible to humans. Rabies in the only vaccine mandated by law for dogs and cats; New York, like many states, requires revaccination at three-year intervals, which is the longest. (A handful of states, including Alabama, still mandate annual boosters.)

But some veterinary immunologists believe the rabies vaccine confers a duration of immunity that exceeds three years - in fact, as much as five or seven years. Problem is, there have been no clinical trials - in which dogs are vaccinated and then exposed to the disease - to prove that. And vaccine companies, which normally conduct the trials, have a strong economic incentive not to. After all, how much sense does it make to spend a ton of money to be told consumers need less of your product than you are selling?

Which brings us to Christine. In her research on overvaccination, she came across two veterinarians who have made it their life's work to nudge their peers toward a less-can-be-more approach to vaccination: Jean Dodds of Hemopet in Garden Grove, Calif., and Ronald Schultz at University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine in Madison, who incidentally helped formulate the American Animal Hospital Association's guidelines.

For his part, Schultz has performed serological studies that documented rabies antibody titer counts at levels known to confer immunity seven years after vaccination.

But what they needed to do was to formally prove the rabies vaccine's long-term duration of immunity, so state-mandated intervals for boosters could be extended.

So, two years ago, Christine teamed up with Dodds to create the Rabies Challenge Fund, which needed $177,000 to fund the studies' first-year budget.

Which brings us to Christine's euphoric phone call: Thanks to the contributions of many dog clubs, veterinarians and concerned owners, they now have the money to start.

The concurrent 5- and 7-year challenge studies trials will begin next month under the supervision of Schultz, who is volunteering his time as principal investigator. The University of Wisconsin will donate all the overhead costs.

"I've been an activist for a long time," Dodds says, "and this is the first time I've seen the public mount a grass-roots effort because the veterinary profession and the vaccine industry haven't done anything."

Five years from now, Schultz will likely have the proof of what he has known all along: That the rabies vaccine provides long-term immunity. In the face of that, the government can lengthen the mandated revaccination intervals.

This is too late to benefit my 7-year-old dog, who went for her rabies booster this weekend. But not for her 1-year-old daughter, who might be spared several unnecessary revaccinations over her lifetime.

Until then, the Rabies Challenge Fund needs more donations: Looming on the horizon each year is a $150,000 annual budget that must still be met.

The Rabies Challenge Fund is as grass roots as you can get. Individuals can and do make a difference.

Yes, I agree. I think it sucks that people that are pissed off about the callous attitude that 'vaccines do no harm' have to take on getting these studies done and the vaccine manufacturers contribute nothing.

Now tell me, , will you give any credence to this study? There are already studies proving that vaccines last longer than even 3 the years the mfg states, yet you do not put your faith in some of them even for those 3 years. So would this study actually change anything as far as your personal vaccination schedule for your dogs? (barring of course that the study does conclude the longer duration of immunity)

A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.

This means that the vaccinated dogs -- ”but not the non-vaccinated dogs”-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.

The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells.

Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage, bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.

The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997 study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).

Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3) The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines(4) following pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? "Carry on vaccinating until we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die."

In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they're vaccinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great advice if it's not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the "oops" list.

But other species are okay - right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine carried an Italian study which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers at their injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites.

It is also widely acknowledged that vaccines can cause a fast-acting, usually fatal, disease called autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA). Without treatment, and frequently with treatment, individuals can die in agony within a matter of days. Merck, itself a multinational vaccine manufacturer, states in The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy that autoimmune haemolytic anaemia may be caused by modified live-virus vaccines, as do Tizard's Veterinary Immunology (4th edition) and the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.(6) The British Government's Working Group, despite being staffed by vaccine-industry consultants who say they are independent, also acknowledged this fact. However, no one warns the pet owners before their animals are subjected to an unnecessary booster, and very few owners are told why after their pets die of AIHA.

A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases

We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine events and the onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns were compounded by research in the human field.

The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following vaccination.(7)

Then, in 2000, CHC's findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.(8) There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis: brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states that "examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well defined viral infections".

When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these traits within the three-month post-vaccination period.

I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that "paresis" is listed in Merck's Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death.

Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a vaccine event. Dr Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves:

"Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a progressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pronounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed."

I must mention here that Dr Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed.

Meanwhile, please join the queue to place your dog, cat, horse and child on the Russian roulette wheel because a scientist says you should.

Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response

The word "allergy" is synonymous with "sensitivity" and "inflammation". It should, by rights, also be synonymous with the word "vaccination". This is what vaccines do: they sensitise (render allergic)an individual in the process of forcing them to develop antibodies to fight a disease threat. In other words, as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the vaccine process the body will respond with inflammation. This may be apparently temporary or it may be longstanding.

Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years. They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or "-itis" diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: it's where an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline or its equivalent is not administered.

There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people (and animals are "people", too) who have inherited faulty B and T cell function. B and T cells are components within the immune system which identify foreign invaders and destroy them, and hold the invader in memory so that they cannot cause future harm. However, where inflammatory responses are concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such as allergies and other inflammatory conditions.

Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with, B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere, it lists features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. To translate, people with these conditions can die if they receive live-virus vaccines. Their immune systems are simply not competent enough to guarantee a healthy reaction to the viral assault from modified live-virus vaccines.

Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is provoked. If a defence isn't stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent.

Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.

A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student Gary Smith, explains what holistic practitioners have been saying for a very long time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have said in relation to their patients:

Christina Chambreau, DVM: "Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses, but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine." (10)

Martin Goldstein, DVM: "I think that vaccines...are leading killers of dogs and cats in America today."

Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: "Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic practitioners have maintained for some time that vaccinations do more harm than they provide benefits." (12)

Mike Kohn, DVM: "In response to this [vaccine] violation, there have been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being one component), epilepsy, neoplasia [tumours], as well as behavioural problems in small animals." (13)

A Theory on Inflammation

Gary Smith explains what observant healthcare practitioners have been saying for a very long time, but perhaps they've not understood why their observations led them to say it. His theory, incidentally, is causing a huge stir within the inner scientific sanctum. Some believe that his theory could lead to a cure for many diseases including cancer. For me, it explains why the vaccine process is inherently questionable.

Gary was learning about inflammation as part of his studies when he struck upon a theory so extraordinary that it could have implications for the treatment of almost every inflammatory disease -- including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, rheumatoid arthritis and even HIV and AIDS.

Gary's theory questions the received wisdom that when a person gets ill, the inflammation that occurs around the infected area helps it to heal. He claims that, in reality, inflammation prevents the body from recognising a foreign substance and therefore serves as a hiding place for invaders. The inflammation occurs when at-risk cells produce receptors called All (known as angiotensin II type I receptors). He says that while At1 has a balancing receptor, At2, which is supposed to switch off the inflammation, in most diseases this does not happen.

"Cancer has been described as the wound that never heals," he says. "All successful cancers are surrounded by inflammation. Commonly this is thought to be the body's reaction to try to fight the cancer, but this is not the case.

"The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing inflammation in order to hide from the immune system [author's emphasis]." (14)

If Gary is right, then the inflammatory process so commonly stimulated by vaccines is not, as hitherto assumed, a necessarily acceptable sign. Instead, it could be a sign that the viral or bacterial component, or the adjuvant (which, containing foreign protein, is seen as an invader by the immune system), in the vaccine is winning by stealth.

If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is not protective but a sign that invasion is taking place under cover of darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought they were. They are undercover assassins working on behalf of the enemy, and vets and medical doctors are unwittingly acting as collaborators. Worse, we animal guardians and parents are actually paying doctors and vets to unwittingly betray our loved ones.

Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world. They are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where they can wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather than experiencing frank viral diseases such as the 'flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and, in the case of dogs, parvovirus and distemper), we are allowing the viruses to win anyway - but with cancer, leukaemia and other inflammatory or autoimmune (self-attacking) diseases taking their place.

The Final Insult

All 27 veterinary schools in North America have changed their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats along the following lines; (15) however, vets in practice are reluctant to listen to these changed protocols and official veterinary bodies in the UK and other countries are ignoring the following facts.

Dogs' and cats' immune systems mature fully at six months. If modified live-virus vaccine is giver after six months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The litre is no "boosted", nor are more memory cells induced.

Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the pet to potential risks such as allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia.

In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary.(16-19)

Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without harm. Dr Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University and a leading light in this field, has been saying this politely to his veterinary colleagues since the 1980s. I've been saying it for the past 12 years. But change is so long in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of animals are dying every year - unnecessarily.

The good news is that thousands of animal lovers (but not enough) have heard what we've been saying. Canine Health Concern members around the world use real food as Nature's supreme disease preventative, eschewing processed pet food, and minimise the vaccine risk. Some of us, myself included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all. Our reward is healthy and long-lived dogs.

It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple news. The gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy dogs, stretches from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond.

About the Author:

Catherine O'Driscoll runs Canine Health Concern which campaigns and also delivers an educational program, the Foundation in Canine Healthcare. She is author of Shock to the System (2005; see review this issue), the best-selling book What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines (1997, 1998), and Who Killed the Darling Buds of May? (1997; reviewed in NEXUS 4/04). She lives in Scotland with her partner, Rob Ellis, and three Golden Retrievers, named Edward, Daniel and Gwinnie, and she lectures on canine health around the world.

Having been in Shelties since 1960, we watched our breed deteriorate in every way, allergies, hips, cancers, epilepsy (food & vacc related) autoimmune diseases to say the least. In 1984 we were about to "pack it in" We chose to change everything about our dogs. We went totally vaccine free and totally raw. No one knew we were doing this. Back then we did not have any help. When in doubt, I would close my eyes and think what a wolf would do! Answered all my questions!

We are happy to say that as of April this year we were 23 years vaccine free raw raw feeding! Absolutely No regrets. Improvement beyond our wildest imaginations. Pups are socialized from the get go. Out and about, people over, exploring, puppy classes. The proof is in the pudding. We will never vaccinate again and never kibble feed!

Immune systems just get better & better, the natural way. Survival of the fittest and we are blessed with healthy happy Shelties. Arguing about the pro's and con's of vaccinating is not even an interest for us. We do what has worked for the past 23 years that didn't work the 24 years previously!

Why must our dogs be revaccinated for rabies and Veterinarians are advised to not titer or even booster? Rabies is the only vaccine required by law. Support the Rabies Challenge Fund to extend the booster requirement past the current 3 year protocol (in most states, some states or counties still have a yearly requirement). http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/

"...Chiron Corporation, manufacturers of the RabAvert rabies vaccines for humans. Their pre-exposure vaccination recommendation for veterinarians, who are at greater risk than the general population for contracting rabies because their profession brings them into physical contact with potentially rabid animals, is for a “Primary course. No serologic testing or booster vaccination.”In other words, after the initial series of rabies vaccinations, it is not recommended that veterinarians receive further boosters or serological testing. Interestingly, the AAHA’s 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines state on Page 18 that “There is no indication that the immune system of canine patients functions in any way different from the human immune system. In humans, the epidemiological vigilance associated with vaccination is extremely well-developed and far exceeds similar efforts in animals whether companion or agricultural. This vigilance in humans indicates that immunity induced by vaccination in humans is extremely long lasting and, in most cases, life-long.” This strongly suggests that, like the human rabies vaccine, the canine rabies vaccine may provide life-long immunity as well -- something which could be determined by long-term challenge studies.

Sorry for the lengthy story, but it is important to pass on to anyone who has a dog or cat. This is absolutely a true story. It is my very own, sad, story.

As most of you know, Paul and I have always had dogs as part of our family. Two years ago, a good friend gave us two beautiful Pomeranian/Chihuahua mix puppies to care for and love. But something went terribly wrong this week. We lost our beautiful, playful, loving, 4.45 lb, Jaz. She died so unexpectedly, and so tragically. We are really struggling with this more than any other animal we have ever lost. We are still in shock! HOW did she die? Well, this is what you have to pass on to everyone you know who has a dog, particularly if it is under 25 lbs.

Since Jaz was 1 yr old I started giving her K9 Advantix, from mid spring to early fall, to protect her from fleas, mosquitos and ticks. I was sure to watch the label to give her the appropriate dosage, and apply it in the manner suggested. The package I bought was for, and I quote, "puppies over 7 weeks old and older dogs under 10 lbs." Little did I know I wasn't protecting her, but slowly killing her. (Revolution does have doses for dogs under 5 lbs...but it had never been prescribed for Jaz.) In fact, I was so sure of this product, I was trying to coerce my sister into using a similar product on her cats.

Products that we are all familiar with, such as the one I used, and including Advantage, Frontline, Capstar and Revolucion are all pesticides. Do you know what Permithrin or Selamectin is used for? Killing ants and other insects. It is very toxic. The vet said, it would be the same as giving your dog a teaspoon of Raid every day. (Revolution seems to have a lower percentage of active ingredients...so it might be safer to use...or just might take longer before signs are recognized).

K9 Advantix has TWO toxic active ingredients!

If you were to call the manufacturers of these products they will tell you it does not enter the blood stream. And, if the dog/cat show signs of stress, just simply give them a bath to wash it away. Revolutions label states it enters the blood stream, and cannot be washed away. All will insist their product does no harm to your pet. However, the Vet says something quite different. Jaz was taken care of by two Vets over the past three days. Each from a different facility and not related to each other. Each told me the same thing!

Here is what happens: Once the poison is given to your dog via a liquid applied to the skin. It enters their system...and never fully leaves it. Some of the toxins remain. The following month you give another dose and more toxins remain in the body...until finally the toxicity is so great it begins to break down the organs, gets into the blood stream, and then all havoc breaks loose. The Vets said, because Jaz was so small, after the first six doses, I probably would never have had to give her anymore for the next THREE YEARS. That's how long it could have stayed active in her body. Larger dogs & cats tolerate it better, but in time, the same thing happens. By the time a larger dog starts having problems, their owners and vets think it is a sign of aging...and rarely ever look into toxic poisoning. They said they are seeing more and more evidence of this happening to our pets. Advantage and Advantix have only been out since aprx. 2002. Over the past two years we are hearing more about the actual affects of these products.

There are symptoms to watch for. The unfortunate thing is, you don't recognize the symptoms, until too late. Why is this? Because one doesn't usually acquaint the symptoms with a product you have been giving your pet for some time. Early symptoms could simply be, skin rashes, and a little more shedding than usual. In larger dogs, they might become more aggressive. By the way, there are no signs to watch for on the label...only instructions for humans if they touch or swallow this poison. (Revolution dose have a few warnings) Jaz had a small skin problem on her lower back. I was told it was just a normal dog thing and to change shampoo, and given an ointment. Well it turns out, it was a "burn" from the toxins.

Later symptoms are, seizures, (most people think seizures are due to breed and aging dogs, brain malfunctions, etc.) Throwing up two to three times a day (many will think it do to food or something they ate outside). Increased urinating and a need for a lot of water. Listless. Runny eyes. Eventually bleeding.

The only sympton Jaz had that we could have caught was the small skin rash or "burn." Notice how things quickly progressed. After giving her the last dose, a week ago Monday, within two days she seemed to become listless. Then she perked up again, like her old self, so we thought she was over whatever ailed her...a 48 hour flu. Then we noticed on Friday, she was always going to the bathroom. She chose not to sleep in her bed with her sister, and using her stuffed bunny as a pillow, but she wanted to be away from everyone, choosing to sleep on a cold floor on the side of the sofa, where she could not be seen. For three days, we filled her water dish every couple of hours, and within minutes she was eliminating it. However, she was eating well. But, by Sunday, she could barely walk, now preferring to lay on the cool tile floor but near her water dish. When we returned home from church, we noticed her shivering. So I sat with her, covered in a blanket. On Sunday she also stopped eating. No Vet or animal hospital was open. Even the animal emergency center had closed for some reason. We had to wait until Monday to get her to a vet. First thing Monday I took her to the vet, who immediately recommended hospitalization. He said it was either kidney failure or diabetes. At the hospital they gave her xrays and blood tests, took stool samples, urinalysis. They ruled out everything. All her vital organs seemed OK. She had slight fever so they put her on an antibiotic drip. As the hours went by, nothing worked. Then she had a seizure. As more time went by they realized it was Toxic poisoning. The doctors drilled me on things she ate. Things and plants to look for in our yard. Then they asked what type of flea control I was using. That did it. However, because these reactions are just now making themselves known, most vets do not know what antidote to give. They put her on various drips of stronger antibiotics and other things to try to flush the poison out, but nothing worked. That began their mad search to find out more.One vet had three people on-line to find out as much as they could. I pulled out my lap-top and tried to help. At 2Am we were still trying to find a way to help her. Another tried to get info from the Bayer Co. who manufactures K9 Ad. They were more concerned about a law suit, insisting their product couldn't be at fault. Two vets kept making calls to Poison Control Center...but no one would return calls. We knew she wasn't going to survive, but thought we would give docs until 10:00AM the next morning. If nothing changed, we would approve of putting her down. However, I was called into the hospital at 7Am, she had three seizures that night, after I left at 2:30AM. When she saw me, her eyes seem to say I'm glad your here to be with me. Doctor said she was not in pain, just in panic from being in a strange place with strange people. We decided not to "put her to sleep" unless she started having problems. She went into a peaceful sleep and died two hours later. Then, we got the call from the Poison Control Center. They didn't know what to give a dog.

The information we found on-line is incredible. There are thousands of blogs all over the country. People begging other people to stop using these products on their dogs. (To be fair, there are as many that say how great the products are...most are on websites that sell the products). What happened to Jaz, has and will continue to happen to other dogs until word gets out, or the manufacturers change the product, does better labeling, responds to emergencies, and prepares antidotes for those who are suffering from this poison. Vets must learn more. Jaz body was donated to a Veternarian research team. Perhaps her small body will aid in finding a way to help other small pets survive this poison.

Within three hours of Jaz dying...I heard EIGHT stories of other people having the same thing happen to them or a friend of theirs. These stories were not from strangers, but from people I know. If they had passed on their story earlier, perhaps I could have saved my little friend the agony she went through. I also learned there was recently an episode on a program similar to 20/20 or 60 minutes that investigted the same things I am mentioned, I am hoping, through my hurt and sadness, that I can, maybe, help prevent the same thing happening to you or someone you know.

My advice, please tell your friends and family, to stop using these products on their small pets. In fact, use it with great caution on larger dogs as well.

We all want them,and our homes to be free from fleas. So, if you or your friends decide to keep using these poisons, do so sparingly...and watch over your pet ever so closely for any type of reaction or change, however minor it might be...even during the months you don't give them this 'medication.' Help your friends and family help their pets! I only wish I had known this earlier.

Please pass on the word...and thank you for reading such a long story. (Someday I may learn how to make a long story short, rather than a short story, long).

*Dips, shampoos, and other insecticide-containing flea-control products can produce systemic illnesses or localized symptoms in the persons applying them. Although these products may pose a risk to consumers, they are particularly hazardous to pet groomers and handlers who use them regularly. Illnesses associated with flea-control products were reported to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Texas Department of Health, and the Washington State Department of Health, each of which maintains a surveillance system for identifying, investigating, and preventing pesticide-related illnesses and injuries.* This report describes cases of occupational illnesses associated with flea-control products, summarizes surveillance data, and provides recommendations for handling these products safely.

Case Reports

Case 1. In April 1997, a 35-year-old female pet groomer treated a dog for fleas by placing the animal in a tub containing water to which was added a concentrated phosmet solution. During application, the dog shook and sprayed the product on the exposed hands and arms of the groomer; a nearby open soft drink can, from which the groomer reported drinking, may have been contaminated. Within an hour after exposure, she developed skin flushing and irritation, shortness of breath, chest pain, accelerated heart rate and respiration, abdominal cramping, and nausea. She sought care at a hospital emergency department, where she was released without treatment after her clothes were discarded, and she showered with soap and ethanol. Plasma and red blood cell (RBC) cholinesterase levels were 4584 U/L (normal: 2900-7100 U/L) and 32 U/g hemoglobin (normal: 24-40 U/g hemoglobin), respectively; however, no baseline or subsequent postexposure cholinesterase levels were available for comparison. The case-patient had been a pet groomer for 1 year and did not use personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., gloves, gowns, or goggles). She reported that she regularly applied insecticides with her bare hands and that her clothing was often wet with water and flea-control dips or shampoos. Previous exposures had not made her ill. No analysis of the concentration of the phosmet product was performed.

Case 2. A female pet store employee (age unknown) became ill and sought attention at a medical clinic in September 1993 after she inadvertently sprayed her face and eyes with a pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide solution while spraying a flea-infested cat house. Despite immediately flushing her eyes with water, she developed eye irritation with reddened conjunctiva and a burning sensation. Mild, diffuse wheezing was noted on examination, although its relation to her exposure is unknown; information about preexisting asthma or respiratory infection was unavailable. An allergic reaction and chemical conjunctivitis were diagnosed, and she received epinephrine, oral antihistamines, and oral steroids. At the time of exposure, she had not been wearing goggles or other PPE. She had not received training for safe handling of pesticides.

Case 3. A 21-year-old female veterinary assistant became ill in April 1992 after applying a phosmet-containing dip to a dog. She reported using a chemical-resistant apron, but no other PPE. A pruritic rash developed on her hands and arms approximately 2 hours after exposure. Later that evening, she developed systemic symptoms, including malaise, chest pains, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, diarrhea, stomach cramps, tremors, blurred vision, and excess salivation. Approximately 48 hours after exposure, she sought care at an urgent-care facility. Cholinesterase levels were not reported; she was treated with antihistamines. The case-patient had been a veterinary assistant for 8 months and had treated animals daily using several flea-control products. Whether she previously had used phosmet-containing products is unknown.

Surveillance Data

During 1989-1997, 16 cases of pesticide-related illness attributable to occupational use of flea-control products were reported in California (13), Washington (two), and Texas (one). The median age of the case-patients was 26 years (range: 16-73 years). Of the 16, eight (all in women) involved systemic illnesses caused by exposure to phosmet (five cases); pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide (two cases); or a product containing carbaryl, malathion, and pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide (one case). The other eight (four in women) involved localized symptoms (i.e., chemical conjunctivitis) caused by flea-control products splashing into the case-patients' eyes. In seven of these cases the products contained pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide, and in one case a phosmet-containing product was used.

After receiving these data in 1998, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff searched for similar cases in the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS). In 1993, TESS, maintained by the American Association of Poison Control Centers, began collection of poisoning reports that included symptom information submitted by approximately 85% of the poison control centers in the United States (1996 is the latest year data are available) (1). Poisonings involving intentional suicides, intentional malicious use, nonworkplace exposures, and unknown intention were excluded from the search.

Pyrethrins are plant-derived insecticides and are common ingredients in flea-control dips and shampoos (2). Although pyrethrins have low toxicity in humans (EPA classified as acute toxicity category III compounds**), exposures have caused dermatitis and upper respiratory tract irritation (3). Allergic contact dermatitis and asthma, sometimes resulting in death, also have been reported (1,3). Piperonyl butoxide, an EPA acute toxicity category IV compound, frequently is added to pyrethrins to slow chemical metabolism. No published reports of eye injury involving pyrethrins or piperonyl butoxide were identified.

Phosmet is an organophosphate insecticide and an EPA acute toxicity category II compound. The primary target in humans is the nervous system. Organophosphate exposure is associated with many of the symptoms reported by the first and third case-patients. In animals, phosmet is mildly irritating to the eyes but not irritating to the skin (4); no published reports of skin or eye irritation in humans after exposure have been identified.

The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, although 76% of the cases described were in women, evidence suggests that this distribution may reflect workforce demographics (more women than men are employed as pet groomers and handlers [5,6]) rather than greater sensitivity to these toxins. Second, these surveillance data may not represent all workers with these illnesses. Third, this report describes only workplace-related illnesses following product exposure. Consumers using these products may experience similar illnesses; however, they were not included in this report.

Despite reports of the toxicity of flea-control products (7-9), including a high prevalence of symptoms among pet groomers and handlers (5,9), illnesses continue to occur among workers using these products. A survey of establishments using flea-control products found that groomers and handlers often were not provided with adequate safety training and PPE (9). When using pesticide products, label directions should be followed precisely. For phosmet-containing flea-control products, the label cautions users to wear safety glasses, long-sleeved shirts, long pants, elbow-length waterproof gloves, waterproof aprons, and unlined waterproof boots. For eye safety, CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends goggles designed to provide splash protection.

Although the EPA does not require PPE for toxicity category III and IV compounds, the findings in this report suggest that PPE may be needed during pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide use. Workers should be trained in the safe handling of flea-control products and in personal hygiene practices (e.g., washing before eating and prohibition of eating, drinking, food storage, and smoking where flea-control products are used), and should be instructed about insecticide dangers and taught to recognize the symptoms of overexposure. In California, agricultural workers who apply organophosphates on 7 days in any 30-day period are required to have plasma and RBC cholinesterase tests before commencing exposure and periodically thereafter (. Similar testing of workers handling organophosphate-containing flea-control products may be prudent; substitution of safer, less toxic pesticides also should be considered.

This report provides an example of how state-based pesticide poisoning surveillance systems and TESS complement one another; however, both systems are affected by lack of adequate clinical recognition of pesticide-related illness and injury. A new EPA publication may assist health-care professionals to gain expertise in recognizing and managing these conditions (10). Free copies are available from EPA; telephone (800) 490-9198.References

* These and other agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, collaborate with CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR), a program that supports the surveillance of acute occupational pesticide-related illnesses and injuries.

** EPA classifies all pesticides into one of four acute toxicity categories based on established criteria (40 CFR Part 156). Pesticides with the greatest toxicity are in category I and those with the least are in category IV.

Method of actionWhether or not it is purposeful, manufacturers of these spot-on flea products havemanaged to convince many veterinarians and animal guardians that these products are not absorbed into our dogs’ systems. The companies’ literature describes in vague and contradictory detail how the chemicals don’t go beyond the hair follicles and fat layers of the dogs’ skin.

Take, for example, information published on Merial’s Web site for Frontline(“How Frontline Works”). In one place, it clearly states that fipronil (Frontline’s “active” ingredient) is absorbed into the skin (“Sebaceous glands provide a natural reservoir for Frontline . . .”), but other statements suggest that fipronil stays there and then leaves through the same entry point without moving into any other parts of the dog’s body – an illogical conclusion.

When the EPA’s Dr. Dobozy reviewed the results of a fipronil metabolism study,she reported that “significant amounts of radio-labeled fipronil were found [not only] in various organs and fat . . . [but they were also] excreted in the urine and feces, and were present in other parts of the body . . . which demonstrated that the chemical is absorbed systemically.”

more...

Neurological health effectsLogic tells us that a topical chemical that is not absorbed into the skin has no chance of causing neurotoxic effects. Then why do the Material Data Safety Sheets (MSDSs) for all the permethrin-containing pesticides recommend preventing their products from having prolonged contact with the skin? And why do they all state that skin sensations, such as “numbness and tingling,” can occur? Schering-Plough’s MSDS makes an additional statement about its Defend EXspot Treatment: “can be harmful if absorbed through the skin and harmful following inhalation,” causing headaches, dizziness, and nausea.

Fipronil (the chemical ingredients in Frontline Plus) has been shown in studies to be neurotoxic to dogs and rats and affects the reproduction of rats. There have also been some disturbing reports of carcinogenicity (cancer causing) in the rat studies (however it must be stated that rats in these studies were given large amounts of fipronil and not the usual dose rate that is given to dogs/cats in flea prevention). It is classed as a Possible Human Carcinogen based on the studies done on rats. Constant exposure is the worry and there was a warning issued in 1996 regarding the Frontline spray product to all pet groomers and veterinarians who would be exposed at a far greater level than the public as there is a greater chance of inhalation and absorption of the product through the skin at increasing doses with these professions. The most common side effect seen with Frontline Plus application is skin irritation at the point of application. However there have been reports of animals that are allergic to Fipronil, and these animals will react violently to the product.

*Constant exposure is a concern to people I guess, but the constant exposure to dogs by repeated applications is of no concern and is only a Possible Human Carcinogen, and not a pet one, so the increases in pet cancers are still a mystery

(UPDATE: They met the first year req'd amount, donations are still needed to pay for all the years of the study, every little bit helps and is TAX DEDCUCTABLE!!)

Morgan is doing all she can to protect her two dogs from overvaccination. “I have a vet who does titer testing instead of giving shots every year,” she says. “My dogs are five years old now, and the tests show they’re still being protected by the vaccines they had when they were pups.” But it’s a different story when it comes to rabies. Morgan lives in a state where rabies shots are required annually, so her vet is obligated to vaccinate her dogs every year, regardless of whether or not they might still be protected by earlier inoculations.

Teresa, meanwhile, is an apartment-dweller whose cat died after suffering an adverse reaction from a rabies vaccine. “I don’t know why I had to get him vaccinated so often when we’re seven floors up and he never went out,” she says. “The chances of him ever coming into contact with a rabid animal were pretty small.”

Serious side effectsIt’s a dilemma common to animal lovers across the U.S. and Canada. Some regions still require annual rabies vaccines, while many others now allow the three-year variety, but even that’s too frequent when you consider the negative side effects of overvaccination. “Rabies is the vaccine most associated with adverse reactions because it’s so potent,” says renowned veterinarian Dr. Jean Dodds. “We have a lot of bad reactions, including fatal ones. They usually occur within two to three weeks after vaccination, although they can appear up to 45 days later. Because the rabies vaccine is a neurogenic protein, meaning it affects the nervous system, what you will often see is seizures or seizure-like disorders like stumbling, ataxia, dementia, and some demyelination, where the animals become wobbly and don’t have proper motor skills. You can also have an autoimmune-like destruction of tissues, skin, blood, joints, the liver or kidneys.” Dr. Dodds adds that animals already ill with immune-related diseases such as cancer can be even more negatively affected. “Often, this is the last thing that causes the animal’s demise.”

Despite all this, federal law still demands that companion animals be regularly vaccinated against rabies, even if you keep your animals indoors or live in an area where rabies is unlikely to be a major problem. The main reason is that rabies can afflict humans as well as dogs and cats. “Rabies is fatal to all mammals,” says Dr. Dodds. “This is an issue to protect the public health, not the animals. The primary goal of the law is to protect people from rabies.”

While there’s no denying that rabies is a serious disease, and that both humans and animals need protection from it, the question remains: why subject dogs and cats to the potentially serious side effects of the vaccination on an annual or even a triennial basis, when the duration of immunity (DOI) is probably much longer?

The need for new legislationIt’s a question that Dr. Dodds and several other professionals asked themselves when they started The Rabies Challenge Fund in the fall of 2005. “From challenge trials, we know the DOI for regular vaccines is seven to nine years, if not longer. So why would the rabies vaccines, being so potent, not have an even longer DOI? We decided the thing to do would be to design a study to federal government standards that would determine if the DOI is longer than three years.” Challenge studies in France have demonstrated that the rabies vaccine has a DOI of at least five years, but this information is not accepted by federal and state legislatures in the U.S., hence the need for a domestic study.

The Rabies Challenge Fund is a nation-wide effort. Along with Dr. Dodds, who is based in California, the study involves Dr. Ron Schultz of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Wisconsin, and vaccine disclosure activist Kris Christine, who lives in the northeast and has already worked with Dr. Dodds on other vaccine-related issues in that region. “We asked Dr. Schultz to do the study and he was delighted,” says Dr. Dodds. The group was even more delighted when the University of Wisconsin agreed to cover almost half the cost of overhead for the study. “It shows they believe very strongly that this is information we need.”

How will the study work?Dr. Dodds and her colleagues officially registered The Rabies Challenge Fund in December of last year. Since then, they have been working diligently to raise the money needed to fund the actual study, which will involve two separate groups of 20 dogs each, one to be studied for five years’ DOI, and the other for seven. “We’ll do the two groups in parallel, and continue 20 of the five-year dogs to seven years.” By monitoring the animals’ antibodies and other benchmarks, Dr. Schultz will be able to determine the DOI for the rabies vaccine over these periods, thereby showing that the initial vaccines given to puppies and kittens before they’re a year old remain fully effective for many years, perhaps even for life. The fund will also finance a study of the adjuvants used in rabies vaccines and establish an adverse reaction reporting system.

But more money is needed before work can start. “We require $177,000 in the first year,” says Dr. Dodds. “So far, we have $65,000, so we’re still short of our goal. We also have some pledges that will become active once we achieve 60% of the amount we need. And we’ve had some substantial donations from Canada, even though what we do might not be accepted there. People still felt compelled to donate.”

One of the unique things about The Rabies Challenge Fund is that it’s being funded by animal guardians and others who feel passionate about this issue. “Kris and Ron and I want this to be a grassroots program,” says Dr. Dodds. “We know a company could come in and give us a whole bunch of money to do the study, but it’s nice to know that the project started and evolved from people in the grassroots."

Killed vaccines like those for rabies virus can trigger immediate and delayed adverse vaccine reactions (termed "vaccinosis") While there may be immediate hypersensitivity reactions, other acute events tend to occur 24-72 hours afterwards, or up to 45 days later in the case of delayed reactions. Reactions that have been documented include:

Adverse events diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs

Although vaccines are designed to be immunogens and must have potency, safety, and efficacy before licensing, no vaccine is completely free of adverse reactions or totally effective. While pre-marketing safety trials by manufacturers help ensure that vaccine-associated adverse events (VAAEs) occur infrequently, their potential has generated public and professional concern regarding overvaccination of humans and animals.

A published retrospective cohort study of over 1.25 million dogs vaccinated at 360 veterinary hospitals permitted accurate estimation of the incidence rate of practitioner-diagnosed acute VAAEs occurring within 3 d of vaccine administration. Specific clinical signs and treatments were reviewed in a random sample of 400 affected dogs. The association between potential risk factors and a VAAE was estimated by use of multivariate logistic regression.

There were 4,678 adverse events (38.2/10,000 dogs vaccinated) associated with administration of 3,439,576 doses of vaccine to 1,226,159 dogs. The VAAE rate decreased significantly as body weight increased. Risk was 27-38% greater for neutered versus sexually intact dogs and 35-64% greater for dogs approximately 1-3 yr old versus 2-9 mo old. The risk of a VAAE significantly increased as the number of vaccine doses administered per office visit increased; each additional vaccine significantly increased risk of an adverse event by 27% in dogs = or < 10 kg (22 lb) and 12% in dogs > 10 kg.

The risk of a VAAE in this study population was inversely related to a dog's weight. This weight -response relationship had been suggested previously in a study where toy breed dogs had significantly more suspected vaccine reactions than other dogs. [Vaccines, in contrast to nearly all veterinary pharmaceuticals, are prescribed on a 1-dose-fits-all basis, rather than by body weight.] A genetic predisposition to VAAEs has been documented for some dog breeds, and the relatively low VAAE rate observed in mixed-breed dogs suggests that laboratory safety trials using mixed breeds may underestimate the VAAE rates that would occur in purebreds. This is important because purebred dogs comprise at least two thirds of the US dog population. Further, the risk of allergic reaction has been reported to increase after the 3rd or 4th vaccination.

In the present study, VAAE risk increased for dogs up to 2 yr of age and then declined thereafter. The decline after 2 yr of age may have been attributable to allergen desensitization, initiation of an alternative vaccination protocol in predisposed dogs, or owner refusal to revaccinate dogs that previously had a VAAE. Neutering appeared to increase the risk of a VAAE more than sex. Females are believed to mount stronger immune responses after vaccination or infection than males because of a dimorphic enhancing effect of estrogens and a protective effect of androgens.

Research is still required to characterize the primary allergenic components of different licensed veterinary vaccines, and it remains to be determined whether vaccine allergenicity and volume can be reduced while immunologic protection is maintained, particularly for smaller dogs.

Premarketing safety studies, when fiscally or logistically limited in size, will remain limited in power to detect rare adverse events that may be more common among animals with particular risk factors.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Young adult small-breed neutered dogs that received multiple vaccines per office visit were at greatest risk of a VAAE within 72 hr after vaccination. These factors should be considered in risk assessment and risk communication with clients regarding vaccination.

Adverse events diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs

Although vaccines are designed to be immunogens and must have potency, safety, and efficacy before licensing, no vaccine is completely free of adverse reactions or totally effective. While pre-marketing safety trials by manufacturers help ensure that vaccine-associated adverse events (VAAEs) occur infrequently, their potential has generated public and professional concern regarding overvaccination of humans and animals.

A published retrospective cohort study of over 1.25 million dogs vaccinated at 360 veterinary hospitals permitted accurate estimation of the incidence rate of practitioner-diagnosed acute VAAEs occurring within 3 d of vaccine administration. Specific clinical signs and treatments were reviewed in a random sample of 400 affected dogs. The association between potential risk factors and a VAAE was estimated by use of multivariate logistic regression.

There were 4,678 adverse events (38.2/10,000 dogs vaccinated) associated with administration of 3,439,576 doses of vaccine to 1,226,159 dogs. The VAAE rate decreased significantly as body weight increased. Risk was 27-38% greater for neutered versus sexually intact dogs and 35-64% greater for dogs approximately 1-3 yr old versus 2-9 mo old. The risk of a VAAE significantly increased as the number of vaccine doses administered per office visit increased; each additional vaccine significantly increased risk of an adverse event by 27% in dogs = or < 10 kg (22 lb) and 12% in dogs > 10 kg.

The risk of a VAAE in this study population was inversely related to a dog's weight. This weight -response relationship had been suggested previously in a study where toy breed dogs had significantly more suspected vaccine reactions than other dogs. [Vaccines, in contrast to nearly all veterinary pharmaceuticals, are prescribed on a 1-dose-fits-all basis, rather than by body weight.] A genetic predisposition to VAAEs has been documented for some dog breeds, and the relatively low VAAE rate observed in mixed-breed dogs suggests that laboratory safety trials using mixed breeds may underestimate the VAAE rates that would occur in purebreds. This is important because purebred dogs comprise at least two thirds of the US dog population. Further, the risk of allergic reaction has been reported to increase after the 3rd or 4th vaccination.

In the present study, VAAE risk increased for dogs up to 2 yr of age and then declined thereafter. The decline after 2 yr of age may have been attributable to allergen desensitization, initiation of an alternative vaccination protocol in predisposed dogs, or owner refusal to revaccinate dogs that previously had a VAAE. Neutering appeared to increase the risk of a VAAE more than sex. Females are believed to mount stronger immune responses after vaccination or infection than males because of a dimorphic enhancing effect of estrogens and a protective effect of androgens.

Research is still required to characterize the primary allergenic components of different licensed veterinary vaccines, and it remains to be determined whether vaccine allergenicity and volume can be reduced while immunologic protection is maintained, particularly for smaller dogs.

Premarketing safety studies, when fiscally or logistically limited in size, will remain limited in power to detect rare adverse events that may be more common among animals with particular risk factors.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Young adult small-breed neutered dogs that received multiple vaccines per office visit were at greatest risk of a VAAE within 72 hr after vaccination. These factors should be considered in risk assessment and risk communication with clients regarding vaccination.

The problem is you are measuring an allergic/immune reaction. 72 hours is a standard accepted lenght of term for such a reaction to occur in humans and animals in nonlaboratory owned animals. If you go out further than that, it becomes harder and harder to prove its related to the allergen in question without locking the dog in a lab where there is no exposure to other potential allergens--from mold and pollen to dog foods. Does that make sense?

The problem is you are measuring an allergic/immune reaction. 72 hours is a standard accepted lenght of term for such a reaction to occur in humans and animals in nonlaboratory owned animals. If you go out further than that, it becomes harder and harder to prove its related to the allergen in question without locking the dog in a lab where there is no exposure to other potential allergens--from mold and pollen to dog foods. Does that make sense?

The problem is if it doesn't happen shortly (days) after the vaccine it isn't considered a vaccine related problem. That is bullshit. But at least this article shows the correlation of vaccines and SOME adverse reactions, and notes the one-size-fits all dosing and that smaller dogs react more.

The problem is if it doesn't happen shortly (days) after the vaccine it isn't considered a vaccine related problem. That is bullshit. But at least this article shows the correlation of vaccines and SOME adverse reactions, and notes the one-size-fits all dosing and that smaller dogs react more.

Ok, so how are you going to prove it? Seriously. The further away from the time of vaccination, the more likely its something else thats causing the problem.

Ok, so how are you going to prove it? Seriously. The further away from the time of vaccination, the more likely its something else thats causing the problem.

you can't, it will always be anecdotal. But when a large number of people have some kind of problem show up in their pet (like allergies, immune, or digestive) and you ask them "when was the animal vaccinated?" and you get a lot of responses that say within the last 3 months "and they were healthy at that checkup", it is time to stop standing behind the "prove it" defense and open the eyes.

You saying "the further away from the time of vaccination" what is that period for you? The 3 days? 2 weeks?

you can't, it will always be anecdotal. But when a large number of people have some kind of problem show up in their pet (like allergies, immune, or digestive) and you ask them "when was the animal vaccinated?" and you get a lot of responses that say within the last 3 months "and they were healthy at that checkup", it is time to stop standing behind the "prove it" defense and open the eyes.

You saying "the further away from the time of vaccination" what is that period for you? The 3 days? 2 weeks?

Exactly, its anecdotal and subjective. That makes it very, very difficult. It'd be more realistic to try to prove titers/protection from a vaccination than prove some of the "diseases" that people are contributing to the vaccine. If protection was proved for a longer period of time, it justifies less frequent vaccinations. that might open the door for investigating soem of the "attributed diseases".